It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by geotrician
So, consider the 2001 Nisqually M6.8 as an intraslab earthquake that is updip from earlier large intraplate earthquakes. Doesn't this indicate something about the state of stress in the plate interface and necessarily mean something when considering the next megaquake?
from the weblog nuclearnuttery .wordpress .com (type it in to visit i am not posting url and getting in trouble)
AboveTopSecret.com Going Nuts Over Cascadia EQ Risk — I wasn’t the only one who “noticed”.
Posted on March 3, 2012
In November 2011 I predicted a scenario in which the Juan de Fuca microplate might endure a two-stage “weakening event” involving the North and South “Bottleneck” areas of the fault. You probably know which areas I mean, the narrowest portions of the top and bottom of the plate. These areas are 1.) SW of Vancouver Island directly across from Puget Sound and 2.) slightly southwest of Portand OR. My drawing showed the quake too close to Portland; in actuality it was 100 mi or so south? Anyway the picture showed a “double-whammy” with stars indicating a weakening or subduction warning at both ends. What I did not predict was the size of the Vancouver quake last month. My picture was actually showing what I believed to be “worst case scenario” for Puget sound. If this pattern was to be repeated with a series of 8.0+ quakes, we will be in serious trouble. There will be an “Omni-Directional” tsunami that will hit everything from alaska to japan to mexico. I hope I am wrong and that we all live a long time without this having to happen. But anyway I thought you should see the ATS thread and see their reasons for being concerned. Many of the posters live in the area affected and are informed. www.abovetopsecret.com...
Scary huh? Let me find my drawing:
Another Vancouver Island Safety Update — Juan de Fuca has been having 4.0+ Bottleneck Stress Quakes at each end for about a month. Due to lava vent formation it’s hard to know how significant a motion the shaking really indicated.
Posted on February 15, 2012
Cascadia Update – WIKIPEDIA reports UPGRADED RISK – Looking at “Transform Faults”, “Connected Faults”, “Domino Effect Seismicity”, “Subduction and Strike-Slip Disasters”, “Lateral Blasts and Masonry”, and “SUPERMOON”! Yay!
Posted on January 18, 2012
From wiki (wow wtf lol check this out):
Forecasts of the next major earthquake
Recent findings concluded the Cascadia subduction zone was more hazardous than previously suggested. The feared next major earthquake has some geologists predicting a 10% to 14% probability that the Cascadia Subduction Zone will produce an event of magnitude 9 or higher in the next 50 years;
however, the most recent studies suggest that this risk could be as high as 37% for earthquakes of magnitude 8 or higher. Geologists have also determined the Pacific Northwest is not prepared for such a colossal earthquake. The tsunami produced may reach heights of approximately 30 meters (100 ft).
I had no idea how severely the local authorities were underplaying this risk.
What is an appropriate way of responding to the threat of a lateral blast, lahara hazard, and 9.0+ threat?
Originally posted by nonnez
reply to post by AuntB
Yeah, it is as if everyone that should be commenting has disappeared off the face of the Earth . I had expected a few opinions by now on the matter.
Originally posted by Anmarie96
reply to post by TrueAmerican
Hey, I went camping for 2 days up in the mountains and look what happens. Don't really feel comfortable with that 3.3 completely out of place.
Originally posted by TMG333
reply to post by TrueAmerican
TA seems to have brewed himself a very large cup of sarcasm today.